DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is to a method (i.e., a process), claim 10 to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 16 to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture or machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 1 and 16 is (claim 1 being representative):
receiving system data corresponding to an engine system, the system data comprising a plurality of remaining useful life (RUL) values, each RUL value of the plurality of RUL values associated with a component or system of the engine system;
determining that a first RUL value of the plurality of RUL values is less than a service interval threshold corresponding to a planned service event;
generating a near-term service recommendation comprising a first component that corresponds to the first RUL value;
determining that a second RUL value of the plurality of RUL values is greater than the service interval threshold;
generating an extended term service recommendation comprising a second component that corresponds to the second RUL value;
generating a coordinated service recommendation by dynamically populating one or more fields of the coordinated service recommendation based on the near-term service recommendation and the extended term service recommendation; and
providing the coordinated service recommendation to a user.
The abstract idea of claim 10 is:
receiving system data corresponding to a plurality of engine systems, the system data comprising one or more remaining useful life (RUL) values;
determining that a RUL value of the one or more RUL values is less than a service interval threshold corresponding to a planned service event;
determining a priority value for each of the plurality of engine systems;
generating a service recommendation by dynamically populating one or more fields of the service recommendation, the one or more fields comprising an ordered list of engine systems of the plurality of engine systems according to the priority value; and
providing the service recommendation to a user.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. The steps describe, at a high level, receiving system data, analyzing the data (i.e., generating a service recommendation), and outputting the result. These are all steps an administrator could perform, with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above describe the business relation or sales activity regarding generating service recommendations, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity. This is further supported by [0002] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above describe the rules or instructions regarding generating service recommendations, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by [0002] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: by at least one processing circuit of a computing system; [user] device.
Claim 10 recites the following additional elements: a processing circuit having one or more processors and memory storing instructions; [user] device.
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements: a non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions; one or more processors of a processing circuit; [user] device.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [0056]-[0064] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computing system, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, when viewed in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 include additional abstract steps and/or information that merely narrow the abstract idea above. There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This simple narrowing of the abstract idea does not translate into patent eligibility.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzer (US 20020143421) in view of Wu (US 20210072742) and Setyawan (WO 2024063693 A1).
Claims 1 and 16
Wetzer discloses:
[A method {[0001]} comprising:]
[A non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a processing circuit {[0022]}, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:]
receiving, by at least one processing circuit of a computing system, system data corresponding to an engine system, the system data comprising a plurality of remaining useful life (RUL) values, each RUL value of the plurality of RUL values associated with a component or system of the engine system
{receiving, by at least one processing circuit of a computing system, system data corresponding to an engine system, the system data comprising a plurality of remaining useful life (RUL) values, each RUL value of the plurality of RUL values associated with a component or system of the engine system indicated in [0035]: The scheduler 40 determines a remaining estimated reliable life span of a component. FIG. 2 is a graphical timeline that illustrates the remaining estimated life span. The longevity data defines an estimated longevity date with reference to the installation date of a component assuming a certain level (e.g., a minimum requisite level) of maintenance or supportive maintenance takes place. The longevity date refers to the expiration date or the last date on which the component is estimated to provide reliable service that meets or exceeds the reliability threshold. The estimated remaining life span of the component represents the interval between the present date or an elapsed time and the expiration date.
corresponding to an engine system also indicated in [0002]: Equipment refers to any device, apparatus, machine, electronics, or assembly that requires maintenance or provides improved performance or greater longevity upon receipt of such maintenance. Equipment means any mechanical equipment, any electrical equipment, any data processing system, any electronics or optical equipment, any software associated with mechanical equipment, electrical equipment, electronic equipment or a data processing system. A component may represent a part, an assembly of parts, a subassembly of a part, an element, or another constituent of a equipment.
by at least one processing circuit of a computing system also indicated in [0022]: The data processor 34 may include one or more microprocessors, electronic memory supporting the functionality of the microprocessor or microprocessors, and software instruction modules stored in the microprocessor or microprocessors.};
determining, by the at least one processing circuit, that a first RUL value of the plurality of RUL values is less than a service interval threshold corresponding to a planned service event
{determining that a first RUL value of the plurality of RUL values is less than a service interval threshold indicated in [0025]: Configuration data may include manufacturing data. The supplier data source 12 may provide manufacturing data concerning a component. For example, the supplier data source 12 may provide longevity reference data on a component of the equipment or the equipment. The longevity reference data indicates the expected life span of a component. During the expected life span, the component meets or exceeds a threshold reliability criteria. The threshold reliability criteria may refer to a percentage of availability of the equipment or a component of the equipment. In one embodiment, the supplier data source 12 may provide longevity reference data, component serial numbers, component identifiers, component descriptions, manufacturer data on a component or other data that is suitable for input to the component longevity estimator 36.
less than a service interval threshold also indicated in [0034]: In contrast, if the usage data indicates that the component or equipment has a lesser usage rate (e.g., a significantly lesser usage rate) than the assumed usage rate, the longevity estimator 36 may increase the reference longevity to a revised reference longevity. As a result, the remaining estimated reliable life span preferably provides a realistic and reliable estimate of performance of the mechanical equipment under actual operating conditions because the revised longevity reference data considers the usage data. Therefore, the expiration date or the longevity data may be modified based on the collection of usage data from sensors 51 on or affiliated with the equipment.
corresponding to a planned service event indicated in [0086]: [0086] In one embodiment, a predictive maintenance controller 336 uses at least one of the longevity estimate and the probability of failure to tentatively schedule a proposed activity or a proposed plan of predictive maintenance.};
generating, by the at least one processing circuit, a near-term service recommendation comprising a first component that corresponds to the first RUL value
{generating a near-term service recommendation comprising a first component that corresponds to the first RUL value indicated in [0036]: Returning to FIG. 1, the scheduler 40 defines maintenance activities which are expressed as planned maintenance data. Planned maintenance data refers to what maintenance should take place and when the maintenance should take place based on the estimated remaining reliable life span of the component or the equipment and an installation date of the component on the equipment.};
determining, by the at least one processing circuit, that a second RUL value of the plurality of RUL values is greater than the service interval threshold
{determining that a second RUL value of the plurality of RUL values is greater than the service interval threshold indicated in [0061]: Once the threshold probability of failure is satisfied consistent with one or more of the above conditions, that data processing system 144 assigns a maintenance activity and planned maintenance time period to the component for storage in a planned maintenance database. In general, the scheduler 40 may assign a higher or lower priority to the scheduling of maintenance for components of the same equipment based on one or more of the following factors: the relative cost of the components, relative labor costs for installation of the components, relative availability of the components, relative probabilities of failures of the components, and the relative impacts on performance and safety of the equipment associated with the components.};
generating, by the at least one processing circuit, an extended term service recommendation comprising a second component that corresponds to the second RUL value
{generating an extended term service recommendation indicated in [0037]: Further, a safeguard interval prior to the expiration of the remaining estimated life span may be added to compensate for potential delays and inefficiencies in the component procurement process, labor shortages, or both.
comprising a second component that corresponds to the second RUL value indicated in [0055] In one example, the predictor 136 may determine reliability data or failure data for a second component in the same equipment or in different equipment than a first component if the second component is substantially similar to the first component and if the second component is present in an analogous technical environment to the first component.}.
Wetzer doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Wu, in a similar field of endeavor directed to predictive maintenance, teaches:
generating, by the at least one processing circuit, a coordinated service recommendation by dynamically populating one or more fields of the coordinated service recommendation based on the near-term service recommendation and the extended term service recommendation
{generating a coordinated service recommendation by dynamically populating one or more fields of the coordinated service recommendation based on the near-term service recommendation and the extended term service recommendation indicated in [0301]: Short-term optimizer 1114 and long-term optimizer 1112 can provide the short-term and long-term maintenance and replacement schedules, respectively, to a schedule combiner 1116. Schedule combiner 1116 can concatenate the short-term and long-term schedules to generate a final maintenance and replacement schedule to be used as a basis for repairing building equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment, VRF equipment, etc.). By concatenating the short-term and long-term schedules, the final schedule can result in cost optimization over both the short-term horizon and the long-term horizon. The final schedule can be provided by schedule combiner 1116 to BMS 606 via communications interface 1108.}; and
providing, by the at least one processing circuit, the coordinated service recommendation to a user device
{providing the coordinated service recommendation to a user device indicated in [0301]: The final schedule can be provided by schedule combiner 1116 to BMS 606 via communications interface 1108.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wetzer to include the features of Wu. Given that Wetzer is directed to maintenance planning, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Wu, in order to facilitate determining a maintenance and replacement strategy for equipment, one in which the maintenance and replacement strategy indicates optimal times for maintenance and/or replacement of equipment to occur in order to optimize (e.g., reduce) costs over an optimization period {[0059] of Wu}.
While examiner asserts that limitations describing the engine system are disclosed by Wetzer (see citations above), for the purposes of compact prosecution, examiner looks to an additional reference. Setyawan, in a similar field of endeavor directed to remaining useful life prediction, teaches:
estimating the RUL of systems including an engine system
{engine system indicated in [0073]: In other example embodiments, the operational system may relate to a building micro grid system which comprises several components, such as solar photovoltaic (PV), battery storage system, diesel generator, gas engine, etc., to provide power to the building. Various example embodiments may be used to estimate the RUL building microgrid system in which the system RUL estimator utilizes component relationships map of building microgrid. Various example embodiments estimates the system RUL and gives recommendation(s), i.e. repair component(s), replace component(s), or replace the overall system.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Wetzer and Wu to include the features of Setyawan. Given that Wetzer is directed to maintenance planning, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Setyawan, in order to facilitate determining a more accurate system RUL, and based on the result of system RUL estimation, providing recommendations to maintain the system to operate as per normal as possible with the least effect on the system operation {[0070] of Setyawan}.
Claim 7
Wetzer further discloses: generating, by the at least one processing circuit, a downtime prediction based on a downtime value of the second component, wherein the extended term service recommendation further includes the downtime prediction {[0008]}.
Claim 8
Wetzer further discloses: receiving, by the at least one processing circuit, a first near-term group of RUL values responsive to determining that the first RUL value is less than or equal to the service interval threshold, wherein the near-term service recommendation further comprises a first list of components that correspond to each RUL value in the first near-term group of RUL values {[0036], [0061]}.
Claim 9
Wetzer further discloses: receiving, by the at least one processing circuit, a first extended term group of RUL values responsive to determining that the second RUL value of the plurality of RUL values is greater than the service interval threshold, wherein the extended term service recommendation further comprises a second list of components that correspond to each RUL value in the first extended term group of RUL values {[0037], [0061]}.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzer in view of Setyawan.
Claim 10
Wetzer discloses:
A computing system {[0001]} comprising:
a processing circuit having one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors {[0022]}, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving system data corresponding to a plurality of engine systems, the system data comprising one or more remaining useful life (RUL) values
{receiving system data corresponding to a plurality of engine systems, the system data comprising one or more remaining useful life (RUL) values indicated in [0035]: The scheduler 40 determines a remaining estimated reliable life span of a component. FIG. 2 is a graphical timeline that illustrates the remaining estimated life span. The longevity data defines an estimated longevity date with reference to the installation date of a component assuming a certain level (e.g., a minimum requisite level) of maintenance or supportive maintenance takes place. The longevity date refers to the expiration date or the last date on which the component is estimated to provide reliable service that meets or exceeds the reliability threshold. The estimated remaining life span of the component represents the interval between the present date or an elapsed time and the expiration date.
corresponding to a plurality of engine systems also indicated in [0002]: Equipment refers to any device, apparatus, machine, electronics, or assembly that requires maintenance or provides improved performance or greater longevity upon receipt of such maintenance. Equipment means any mechanical equipment, any electrical equipment, any data processing system, any electronics or optical equipment, any software associated with mechanical equipment, electrical equipment, electronic equipment or a data processing system. A component may represent a part, an assembly of parts, a subassembly of a part, an element, or another constituent of a equipment.};
determining that a RUL value of the one or more RUL values is less than a service interval threshold corresponding to a planned service event
{determining that a RUL value of the one or more RUL values is less than a service interval threshold indicated in [0025]: Configuration data may include manufacturing data. The supplier data source 12 may provide manufacturing data concerning a component. For example, the supplier data source 12 may provide longevity reference data on a component of the equipment or the equipment. The longevity reference data indicates the expected life span of a component. During the expected life span, the component meets or exceeds a threshold reliability criteria. The threshold reliability criteria may refer to a percentage of availability of the equipment or a component of the equipment. In one embodiment, the supplier data source 12 may provide longevity reference data, component serial numbers, component identifiers, component descriptions, manufacturer data on a component or other data that is suitable for input to the component longevity estimator 36.
less than a service interval threshold also indicated in [0034]: In contrast, if the usage data indicates that the component or equipment has a lesser usage rate (e.g., a significantly lesser usage rate) than the assumed usage rate, the longevity estimator 36 may increase the reference longevity to a revised reference longevity. As a result, the remaining estimated reliable life span preferably provides a realistic and reliable estimate of performance of the mechanical equipment under actual operating conditions because the revised longevity reference data considers the usage data. Therefore, the expiration date or the longevity data may be modified based on the collection of usage data from sensors 51 on or affiliated with the equipment.
corresponding to a planned service event indicated in [0086]: [0086] In one embodiment, a predictive maintenance controller 336 uses at least one of the longevity estimate and the probability of failure to tentatively schedule a proposed activity or a proposed plan of predictive maintenance.};
determining a priority value for each of the plurality of engine systems
{determining a priority value for each of the plurality of engine systems indicated in [0061]: Once the threshold probability of failure is satisfied consistent with one or more of the above conditions, that data processing system 144 assigns a maintenance activity and planned maintenance time period to the component for storage in a planned maintenance database. In general, the scheduler 40 may assign a higher or lower priority to the scheduling of maintenance for components of the same equipment based on one or more of the following factors: the relative cost of the components, relative labor costs for installation of the components, relative availability of the components, relative probabilities of failures of the components, and the relative impacts on performance and safety of the equipment associated with the components. For example, the scheduler 40 may assign a higher priority to the scheduling of maintenance for a component with a higher probability of failure than other components of the equipment. Alternatively, the scheduler 40 may assign a higher priority to the condition or maintenance work where there is a high cost (e.g., economic or otherwise) of failure, even if the probability of failure is lower. };
generating a service recommendation by dynamically populating one or more fields of the service recommendation, the one or more fields comprising an ordered list of engine systems of the plurality of engine systems according to the priority value
{generating a service recommendation by dynamically populating one or more fields of the service recommendation, the one or more fields comprising an ordered list of engine systems of the plurality of engine systems according to the priority value indicated in [0301]: Short-term optimizer 1114 and long-term optimizer 1112 can provide the short-term and long-term maintenance and replacement schedules, respectively, to a schedule combiner 1116. Schedule combiner 1116 can concatenate the short-term and long-term schedules to generate a final maintenance and replacement schedule to be used as a basis for repairing building equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment, VRF equipment, etc.). By concatenating the short-term and long-term schedules, the final schedule can result in cost optimization over both the short-term horizon and the long-term horizon. The final schedule can be provided by schedule combiner 1116 to BMS 606 via communications interface 1108.}; and
providing the service recommendation to a user device
{providing the service recommendation to a user device described in [0090] Notwithstanding the above operation of the scheduler 40, any of the embodiments of the data processing system (44, 144, 244, or 344) may include a user interface (e.g., a graphical user interface) to allow an operator to control and schedule the predictive maintenance procedure.}.
While examiner asserts that limitations describing the engine system are disclosed by Wetzer (see citations above), for the purposes of compact prosecution, examiner looks to an additional reference. Setyawan, in a similar field of endeavor directed to remaining useful life prediction, teaches:
estimating the RUL of systems including an engine system
{engine system indicated in [0073]: In other example embodiments, the operational system may relate to a building micro grid system which comprises several components, such as solar photovoltaic (PV), battery storage system, diesel generator, gas engine, etc., to provide power to the building. Various example embodiments may be used to estimate the RUL building microgrid system in which the system RUL estimator utilizes component relationships map of building microgrid. Various example embodiments estimates the system RUL and gives recommendation(s), i.e. repair component(s), replace component(s), or replace the overall system.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wetzer to include the features of Setyawan. Given that Wetzer is directed to maintenance planning, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Setyawan, in order to facilitate determining a more accurate system RUL, and based on the result of system RUL estimation, providing recommendations to maintain the system to operate as per normal as possible with the least effect on the system operation {[0070] of Setyawan}.
Claim 11
Wetzer further discloses: wherein generating the service recommendation further comprises populating the one or more fields of the service recommendation with an indication of parts needed to complete a service event {[0038]}.
Claim 12
Wetzer further discloses: wherein a first priority value for a first engine system of the plurality of engine systems is based on: an age of first engine system; a total run time for a first component of the first engine system; and a RUL value for the first component of the first engine system {[0028]}.
Claim 13
Wetzer further discloses: wherein the first priority value is further based on a second priority value of a second engine system, the second engine system located proximate the first engine system, and a difference between the first priority value and the second priority value at or below a predetermined threshold {[0051], [0073]}.
Claim 14
Wetzer further discloses: wherein the operations further comprise determining a predicted downtime value for a first engine system of the plurality of engine systems based on predicted downtimes of engine systems having higher priority values than the first engine system {[0008]}.
Claim 15
Wetzer further discloses: wherein the predicted downtime value is further based on a set of components that are recommended to be serviced, a travel time for the first engine system, a travel time for a technician, and a delivery time for service parts, such that the predicted downtime value for the first engine system is an aggregate of one or more of a service time for the set of components, the travel time for the first engine system, the travel time for the technician, the delivery time for service parts, and the predicted downtimes of engine systems having a higher priority value than the first engine system {[0008], [0061]}.
No Prior Art Rejection Applied to Claims 2-6 and 17-20
There is no prior art rejection applied to claims 2-6 and 17-20. Applicant is directed to the non-final rejection mailed 10/17/25 for examiner’s explanation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered. The headings and page numbers below correspond to those used by applicant.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the remarks offered on pages 8-9, examiner maintains that the steps are abstract and could be performed mentally and/or manually. There’s nothing inherently technical about receiving system data, analyzing the data (i.e., generating a service recommendation), and outputting the result. That the steps are performed “dynamically” doesn’t make them any less abstract, as an administrator could respond “dynamically” in response to receiving system data.
Applicant continues on pages 9-10 regarding Step 2A Prong Two, offering: “Accordingly, even if the claims recite a judicial exception (which the Applicant does not concede), the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the technical field of engine system service events, consistent with the guidance set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).” Applicant also highlights sections of the specification in an attempt to bolster their position.
However, the determination made at Step 2A Prong Two is informed by the additional elements, analyzed alone and in combination. Examiner maintains that the additional elements – e.g., by at least one processing circuit of a computing system; [user] device – are generic computing elements that merely facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Whether viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Applicant continues on pages 10-11 regarding Step 2B, offering: “As noted above in the discussion under Step 2A, Prong Two, and as explained further below with respect to at least paragraphs [0040] and [0041] of the Specification, claims 1, 10, and 16 recite improvements to engine system service events at least by claiming technical solution(s) to the technical problems of this field.” Applicant also highlights sections of the specification in an attempt to bolster their position.
However, the determination made at Step 2B, similar to Step 2A Prong Two, is informed by the additional elements, analyzed alone and in combination. In this instance and in accordance with MPEP 2106, examiner carried over the analysis performed at Step 2A Prong Two, i.e., the additional elements – e.g., by at least one processing circuit of a computing system; [user] device – are generic computing elements that merely facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Whether viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Accordingly, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant offers remarks regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on pages 11-12. In particular, applicant argues offers that the “cited passages of Wetzer discuss estimating lifespan, performance, and longevity of a component, but are silent with respect to such lifespan, performance, and longevity corresponding to a planned service event,” and “Wetzer suggests maintenance activities (e.g., service events) based on failure of components, not based on remaining useful life values, as required by Claim 1.”
Examiner disagrees. In addition to the previous citations, Wetzer indicates in [0086] that service events are informed by longevity estimates: “In one embodiment, a predictive maintenance controller 336 uses at least one of the longevity estimate and the probability of failure to tentatively schedule a proposed activity or a proposed plan of predictive maintenance.”
Accordingly, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140163936, which teaches: Systems and methods for failure prediction and maintenance planning are provided. A system for failure prediction and maintenance planning, comprises a statistical modeling module comprising a periodic impact evaluation module capable of identifying periodic effects on the failure risk, a balance equation systems module capable of constructing balance equations with respect to phases of failure times, and an initial phase estimation module capable of estimating an unknown initial phase, wherein one or more of the modules are implemented on a computer system comprising a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory.
US 20200057689, which teaches: Example implementations described herein involve a system for maintenance recommendation based on data-driven failure prediction. The example implementations can involve estimating the probability of having a failure event in the near future given sensor measurements and events from the equipment, and then alerts the system user or maintenance staff if the probability of failure exceeds a certain threshold. The example implementations utilize historical failure cases along with the associated sensor measurements and events to learn a group of classification models that differentiate between failure and non-failure cases. In example implementations, the system then chooses the optimal model for failure prediction such that the overall cost of the maintenance process is minimized.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629